167 Responses

Arranging for someone to lodge a frivilous complaint for the purpose of then claiming persecution is, frankly, silly. On this, I think the media's conclusion seems pretty reasonable. You might want to moderate your mock-indignation in this instance.

Oh and can I also suggest attacking Val Sim 'cause she's the official with responsibility is simply foul; you do understand that officials don't get to pick and choose which Executive instructions they're tasked with don't you?

The issue of candidate election spending actually is dealt with by the Chief Electoral Officer, not the Electoral Commission. This office gives advice on its interpretation of the EFA (unlike the Commission). So as an ex post facto rationalisation, this seems pretty lame.

Since we're looking at reviewing the EFA, how about we go a step further and re-assess the whole system?

A bi-partisan commission to look at:

1] retaining MMP or switching to another proportional system (not a return to FPP). include a review of the 5% thresh-hold2] retaining Maori seats. Either lock 'em in or phase them out (over 20 years if necessary)3] increasing the term to 4 years, so the Govt can govern and not switch to election mode in Year 34] setting a fixed election date, with the official campaign season (vis a vis any EFA) starting 6 months prior. This would not negate a Govt calling a snap election.

A great idea if I say so myself, the only thorn being the commission/consultation process. I'd like it all done in a year but fat chance of that happening.

<if you think this is threadjacking Russell you can hold it over til later in the discussion>

4] setting a fixed election date, with the official campaign season (vis a vis any EFA) starting 6 months prior. This would not negate a Govt calling a snap election.

Do any Westminster governments have fixed election dates? I don't see how it can work. What's the point of a fixed date if the government can call a snap election early? That's not a fixed date, that's a "last possible day an election can occur", and we already have that.

What's the point of a fixed date if the government can call a snap election early?

I think the idea is that the government would have to do more than declare a snap election, such as having to make a formal vote on it (perhaps with a grace period during which the other parties could attempt to cobble together their own government).

Such an arrangement would raise the bar considerably with respect to snap elections, removing the incumbent's tactical advantage of being able to call an election to their own preference.

As a candidate, it was a real pain planning my life around an unknown election date, so I'd welcome fixed election dates.

I think this got pretty comprehensively thrashed out on another thread, but I'd turn your question around: But what practical or constitutional obstacles are there to this scenario :-

1) Fix the election date at, say, the second Saturday in November.

2) The only exception is if the Government loses confidence and supply, in which case the election MUST be held six weeks from the next Saturday.

Perhaps resident constitional scholars would beg to differ, but I find it hard to see any pending constitutional crisis that required Muldoon to call a snap election in 1984, or Clark doing the same in 2002. What was blindingly obvious was the naked strategic self-interest of the Government of the day. As Muldoon infamously slurred when a hack pointed out that he didn't have much time to campaign: "It doesn't leave my opponents much time, does it?" And eighteen years later, Clark's rationale was that the split of the Alliance -- and the length of Question Time! -- made the country ungovernable. Even she wasn't pushing that with any conviction. But what was clear was Labour's very strong polling, and having the financial and organisational infrastructure in place to gazump National. A correct call, considering that election delivered National the worse result in the party's history.

I've always imagined 'ACT activists' as sort of the geeks who the geeks wont hang out with, they've never figured out how to make a decent living, wealth has passed them by and it's sooo unfair - stolen from them by the evil reds - sitting in a bare one-room apartment, a naked light bulb, with a TV on an apple box and another box as a bookcase - 3 volumes of rand is all that's there

__ 3] increasing the term to 4 years, so the Govt can govern and not switch to election mode in Year 3__

Agreed.

Er... we'd start after the next scheduled election, right?

1) Fix the election date at, say, the second Saturday in November.

2) The only exception is if the Government loses confidence and supply, in which case the election MUST be held six weeks from the next Saturday.

What happens then if my government loses confidence in March of the year when the election are due? Are you still going to fix a second general election in November? I'm not against the idea of fixed, by it can simply be fixed on the first Saturday three (or four) years after the previous election, no?

I was never really clear on this part of the EFA. If I want to spend up to $12,000 telling people to vote for Party X, I need only include the promoter's address, yes? And, that could mean just including my address?

If you can't get into his house, you'll just have to fill his car with Space Invader.

For a few seconds there I pictured the old-style video game with the monitor mounted into a table. Man that would be a cool ride.

Around fixed election dates, the question as Giovanni has put it is what then happens if you 'snap' early, come the actual election date?

Our elections determine who is the government. In the US, for example, it's a different situation as they don't have a Westminster system. So their government doesn't fall over, it just trundles on with a stupid grin, a la George Bush.

I'm all in favour of Craig's point, that the right to call elections shouldn't just be used for political advantage, but I wonder if its practical.

Around fixed election dates, the question as Giovanni has put it is what then happens if you 'snap' early, come the actual election date?

Kyle/Giovanni,

In NSW, fixed means fixed so long as you have confidence and supply. If you lose that and the other mob can't form a government, an election is called. But so long as you have confidence and supply, you can't call an election inside the four years.

If you lose confidence and supply and the Governor calls an election, the subsequently elected government has a full four year term contingent upon retaining confidence and supply.

2] retaining Maori seats. Either lock 'em in or phase them out (over 20 years if necessary)

I'm hopeful National will sort this out this term, with the help of the Maori Party. If we're going to entrench the seats (and they weren't meant to be permanent when they were introduced - it was a mechanism to divert the Maori vote) then surely Maori shouldn't be allowed on the General Roll as well? Why do they get two choices? And if we're going to have a Pasifica seat (as has been suggested) will we have one for the Chinese?

And if we're going to have a Pasifica seat (as has been suggested) will we have one for the Chinese?

Oh oh, and one for Winston supporters. It is really unfair that a lot of people voted for WP and he didn't get in because his voters are spread out over the country and not just in Tauranga (where they all used to be - the drift south of the retired folks.). From the electorate votes I'd guess not a lot of people would vote for the Ron Mark Party or Peter Brown Party. Can he be cloned? That would be the crunch I guess.

I was never really clear on this part of the EFA. If I want to spend up to $12,000 telling people to vote for Party X, I need only include the promoter's address, yes? And, that could mean just including my address?

Have I missed something in that understanding?

Apart from the fact that you can't actually say "vote for Party X" without Party X's approval (and it counting on their spending cap), only the fact that you need your name as well.

Basically, unless you're spending a lot of money (and despitethe right's pretensions, $12,000 is an awful lot of money to almost everyone in NZ), then the law has very little effect on you. It's only a "problem" for those seeking to use their wealth to gain an unfair advantage.